Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon procurement

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because the cited article is itself a copy of an earlier version of the main Wikipedia article. --Jurryaany (talk) 14:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic content
Neither of the sections on potential or unsuccessful sales has any significant sourcing other than passing chit-chat in assorted journals. This is not enough to establish notability of these topics. The section on future deals also falls foul of WP:CRYSTAL. Both these sections need drastic pruning, if not outright removal. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Note that according to our WP:VERIFY policy, and especially the secion on WP:ONUS, "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article." ... "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have now done some initial pruning to the section on potential sales. In the light of the recent AfD decision to keep this article, I would appreciate some comment before going further. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The inclusion of what is none noteworthy sales trivia was the reason the information was removed from the main article with the exception of notable international competitions like India. This was a content fork from before the junk was taken out, it was agreed to keep this article but it still doesnt mean it can be used as a dumping ground for all the sales campaigns that have ever been heard of. Marketing and sales pitches goes on all the time but very little of it is encyclopedic. Bit like a nice salesman left a Typhoon brochure but we prefer the Wonder Megabomber because of all the extras type commentary. MilborneOne (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree, sales pitches and wishful thinking on the part of the marketing department is not notable. If an aircraft was to be entered in a national competition and does not win I think that would be notable and it would also be notable if a nation states reasons for rejecting an aircraft (like insufficient range, too few engines, etc). But the rumours that some nation may be interested doesn't belong here. Marketing departments are always trying to drum up "interest". - Ahunt (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Failed bids section
Recently several of these sections have been greatly expended with lots of highly detailed text on acquisition programs by countries that resulted in buying some other aircraft than the Typhoon. I think most of these need to be cut down to say that there was a completion, the Typhoon was entered but some other aircraft was chosen. Mountains of detail on the F-35, especially, is not relevant to this article. - Ahunt (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Ahunt (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

II(AC) Sqn RAF paragraph.
Why is this notable? Since II(AC) Sqn reformed with Typhoons in 2015, 12 Sqn reformed with Typhoon in 2018 and IX(B) Sqn then reformed as a Typhoon Sqn in 2019. 80.192.16.16 (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)